And on the issue of long links being split into several lines? That's a problem with the e-mail client you are using.
Sure, but people are going to use the clients they're going to use. Sometimes they don't even have control over what client they use, for business reasons. Communication is a two-way street.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the available data for email client usage is not nearly as rich or recent as that for web clients. The best is probably the survey at http://www.clickz.com/experts/archives/emailstrategies/tech/article.php/1428551 , but this study is a voluntary survey with 500 respondents, and it's 3 years old. So it's a little harder to say "When the % of readers have clients that can handle super-long URLs reaches 95%, let's forgo the short URLs and the other 5% will just have to deal" the way you can say the same about, say, Cascading Style Sheets.
Incidentally, this URL is really just a baby compared to some of the monstrosities we've got these days. It's nothing compared to, say, http://tinyurl.com/6:
Well, I can't say I've ever actually seen these used in web pages
anyway. It's almost exclusively for contexts where a long URL make
break, which is mostly email. (Maybe chat, but all the chat clients
I've seen handle long URLs quite well.)
I've used them in web forums where badly written naughty word filters prevent the posting of a link.
For example, on one forum I was preventing from posting the link to www.objectwatch.com.
It took me a while to discover the naughty word.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:19:23 +0900, Francis Hwang <sera@fhwang.net> wrote:
On Mar 10, 2005, at 10:29 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
> I would rather people just use HTML links properly, so that you see
> the label
> instead of the underlying URL. Doesn't work too well for plain text
> email,
> but no one said email looks as nice as a webpage anyway
Well, I can't say I've ever actually seen these used in web pages
anyway. It's almost exclusively for contexts where a long URL make
break, which is mostly email. (Maybe chat, but all the chat clients
I've seen handle long URLs quite well.)
And HTML email has all sorts of complications to it, too.
That said, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when no one in its right mind will ever generate such monstrous URLs and therefore render those services obsolete.
For those who don't feel like clicking (and to tie this thread into the
list), qURL is written in Ruby with ActiveRecord. It's being a bit flaky
today, but it's a useful service and another example of ruby pride
Also, you can configure it to transfer instantly, delayed, or manual.
Tom
···
* On Mar 11 0:05, Austin Ziegler (ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) wrote:
They've never been down that I've ever seen. The service has been
around for a long time. It's free. It works. It's robust.
I doubt this url
xxxx
just came about by chance, and suggests a fairly juvenile (i.e.
unreliable) group of people are running tinyurl.com.
Other than the obvious ad hominem aspect, what data do you have that
supports your juvenile == unreliable claim?
Um, pretty much every person I've met who has exhibited routine juvenile behavior has proved to be unreliable over reasonable amounts of time.
Maybe I've just had bad luck associating with the wrong group of childish people.
Are you concerned now
about the reliability of it, which hasn't yet (to me, anyway) proven
to be bad, or something else?
I'm concerned (somewhat; I'm not really losing sleep over any of this) over whose business model I'm supporting, and what happens to the data that is likely begin collected.
I'll agree that the url mentioned is in bad taste, but I would suspect
it's an "in-joke" that got out.
You know... I just realized something. I *just* subscribed to RubyTalk
on Sunday. I just saw this post: http://rubyurl.com/XcJEm from Friday...
and without having never read the discussion about TinyURL, qurl,
Rubyurl.net, etc... I had thought of the idea last night and started
RubyURL.com..and seeing that post..well, it's kind of freaky. heh
...the world works in strange ways sometimes.
-Robby
···
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 06:59 +0900, Aredridel wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:19:23 +0900, Francis Hwang <sera@fhwang.net> wrote:
>
> On Mar 10, 2005, at 10:29 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
>
> > I would rather people just use HTML links properly, so that you see
> > the label
> > instead of the underlying URL. Doesn't work too well for plain text
> > email,
> > but no one said email looks as nice as a webpage anyway
>
> Well, I can't say I've ever actually seen these used in web pages
> anyway. It's almost exclusively for contexts where a long URL make
> break, which is mostly email. (Maybe chat, but all the chat clients
> I've seen handle long URLs quite well.)
>
> And HTML email has all sorts of complications to it, too.
>
That said, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when no one in its right mind will ever generate such monstrous URLs and therefore render those services obsolete.
Perhaps if the resources are available, someone could set up a "rubyurl.net" site that functions in the same way? Possibly restricted to, say, RubyForge accounts for setting a rubyurl up with the intent that it must be used for Ruby-ish purposes? (No shock site links, political flamebait sites, etc)
> Since IRC chats are often archived, and mailing list posts too, I
> haven't found many cases where durability isn't a good thing.
>
Exactly, besides, many of these tiny urls are based on a temporary
hash table that is recycled every now and then.
If you're exchanging valuable, long lasting information, tinyurls may
not be good to keep a record for posterity.
But surely you just bookmark the url you get redirected to?
I generally post both the long version and a tinyurled one, then
anyone with religious objections can click on the long one and it still
looks ok in mutt.
···
--
'When the door hits you in the ass on the way out, clean off the smudge
your ass leaves, please'
-- Alien loves Predator
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
It's been alive for over a year, what more do you want?
I'm planning on factoring it into a Rails application when I have time.
That said, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when no one in its right mind
will ever generate such monstrous URLs and therefore render those
services obsolete.
Since IRC chats are often archived, and mailing list posts too, I
haven't found many cases where durability isn't a good thing.
Exactly, besides, many of these tiny urls are based on a temporary
hash table that is recycled every now and then.
If you're exchanging valuable, long lasting information, tinyurls may
not be good to keep a record for posterity.
But surely you just bookmark the url you get redirected to?
I often search ruby-talk (and other) archives for various information.
No idea how persistent TURLs are; the 'real' version is certainly better
in that respect.
I generally post both the long version and a tinyurled one, then
anyone with religious objections can click on the long one and it still
looks ok in mutt.
>Michael Campbell wrote:
>>Other than the obvious ad hominem aspect, what data do you have that
>>supports your juvenile == unreliable claim?
>
>Um, pretty much every person I've met who has exhibited routine
>juvenile behavior has proved to be unreliable over reasonable amounts
>of time.
>
>Maybe I've just had bad luck associating with the wrong group of
>childish people.
You might have. I've known tons of reliable, juvenile people. I'd argue
that this description would fit a lot of computer programmers.
What Francis said. Most of my friends are juvenile, and some of them
are reliable.
I don't think you can rule out a site just because of one joke.
Though I guess the specific problem with the TinyURL joke is that it
crosses a "good taste" line... though that probably depends where your
political peferences lie
